In the swedish christian newspaper "Dagen" ("The Day" in english) an article covered a new Christian movement that seems to have its origins in the US. It goes by the name of "Jesus-Only". The movement in Sweden is small however, but the movement in US seems to be growing...
Information anybody?? Please fill in the blanks... Is it something that is heretical or biblical?
Sincerely Magnus, Sweden.
It is probably referring to "Oneness Pentecostalism."
Here is some info on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Only
http://www.carm.org/oneness.htm
If it's the same "Jesus Only" movement I am thinking of here are their basic characteristics:
1) They deny the Trinity.
2) Without water baptism you cannot be saved.
3) Without speaking in tongues you cannot be saved.
It is probably referring to "Oneness Pentecostalism."
I'm pretty sure you're correct. There may be some variations of it that are not Pentecostal.
My goodness, there is so much deception out there today. It's exhausting trying to stay on your toes around it.
Krispy
The Jesus-Only or UPC (United Pentecostal Church) is framed by the ancient heresy of Sabellianism and ornamented by the double-error of not only tongues being necessary at Holy Ghost Baptism (hence, the term "Pentecostal" in their title), but taking them a step further, make glossalalia a salvific requirement as well. They require all their adherents to comply to the tenent of re-baptism in "Jesus' Name only", and make this, of course, a salvific ordinance also. If you haven't guessed already, they are exclusivists, meaning it's either "their way or the highway" to perdition - the token trait of all cultistic movements. Stay away from them, brother, and regard them as you would any "Christian" cult, with poison comparable to that of The Watchtower, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Mormonism, etc.
Yes, I know this particular movement or cult all too well. I was once apart of it!
I will say this, I do not exclude the power of God that I have seen with some individuals all together, however, they are very dogmatic and leave no room for error, but I would also caution to say b very careful and leery of such doctrine.
I will say that I do believe in Jesus or Yeshua/YHWH name only. Not bcuz anyone convinced me, but I believe it is much older than a doctrine or a cult.
I learned this from a jewish/hebraic descended woman. She explained both the monotheistic understanding and the fallacy of the trinity.
blessings
Hmmmm..sorry to hear about that jewess..Sounds like she's gonna have some 'splainin to do come Judgement Day! What a shame it will be too late for her to repent when she sees what she has done..Lord have Mercy upon her soul..lead her and all who she has decieved into the pure light of Your Perfect Truth!
Praying for you brother.
ejg,
Could you please explain what you mean by 'the fallacy of the trinity'.
Thank you.
We have one God(I Am, Deut 6:4), but He is a God that has particularly manifested HIMSELF to the world in three manners(father in creation, the Son in redemption, Holy Spirit operating in the church and in the world today).
The concept of the trinity explains to many, and including myself that HE has three different personalities as well as being three different persons. This is what is taught and has been believed for hundreds upon hundreds of years.
Now, even many of the Nicean council members of 324-326 ad argued and debated extensively, and a trinitarian God was not accepted. Trintarian God was embraced and accepted by Constantine and many catholics and sects of that day. This can be extensively researched by any one interested in more facts.
I will say this that when I have spoken to trinitarians on this issue, and it gets explained to them in the manner in which the Yewish woman explained it too me, then they respond " oH yeh, that's right, or thats what I meant"...
Lastly, this is not and shouldn't be a doctrine or issue of division, I believe the revelation of who Yeshua(YHWH saves) is must come from a direct heavenly understanding and not our own or it will continue or forever be a mystery.
for as the great apostle stated in I Timothy 3:16," great is the mystery of Godliness", for God was manifested in the flesh. How wonderful this is to know and have communicated to we meager creatures? God is soooo good!
The Yewish person understands that there is only ONE God with one personality that is revealed and communicated by HIMSELF to the world through HIS son and through the Holy Spirit. Note: I will not make this a doctrinal issue of argument, I AM JUST RESPONDING TO YOUR REQUEST OF EXPLANATION AS BEST AS I CAN THROUGH WHAT GOD HAS SHOWN US....
Blessings, Honour and Power be unto God
I know several people that were baptized in classic Pentecostal or Charismatic flavored churches, i.e. Assembly of God, Church of God, Four Square, Vineyard, etc. that have had some difficult expeiences afterward with "Jesus Only", or "Oneness" folks.
The difficulty is that they are then asked in what name they were baptized. Naturally the stock response has been, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit per Jesus instructions in the Gospels". The Oneness folks have then taken them through the book of Acts and shown them that in all the listed applications of baptism they were indeed baptized in the name of Jesus only... at least as far as the record of the book of Acts reveals. This can of course shake some of those folks up.
I must say that the Oneness folks are making a very interesting appeal and point. I am not looking to necessarily discuss it here...just honestly noting the grounds upon which they base this doctrine.
A method of baptism that I have seen to help avert this issue for the newly baptized has been to create a synthesis of the two making use of the Gospels and Acts methodologies. In practice that has lead to a formula that goes something like, "As a representative of Jesus Christ and in fulfilling His command to believers I baptise you in Jesus name, in the name of the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit". This has seemed to totally satisfy the "Oneness" folks when they are given this answer as to how someone was baptized. It also has little room to be faulted as this formula is directly drawn from scripture.It obviously avails both the Acts and Gospel record of wordings.
It may mean little...but the ability of those folks to not have their experience questioned... and in particular by the use of the Acts records only recording baptisms in Jesus name..has been a really helpful thing to those I have seen need it.
Just thought this might be an interesting addition to the discussion.
Peace and Blessings,
Jason
www.wisdomencounters.com
While being stoned, Stephen saw the Son sat at the right hand of the Father. . .i.e. two different persons.
Also; The Spirit does not give the gift of speaking in tongues to everyone. So any movement that stipulates speaking in tongues as a salvific component must be wrong.
In my experience, I couldn't agree more: stay way clear of this!
For anyone keenly interested, I couldn't more highly recommend a free online video lecture course from Dallas Theological Seminary on Trinitarianism.
You can watch it through iTunes:
I just wanted to add about the gift of speaking in tongues. From what I understood, there is the prayer language, or tongues, that one receives after asking for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and then there is the actual gift of tongues which is used to speak to the body of Christ, and that must always have an interpretation.
So not everyone gets the gift of tongues that is used with the interpretation.
I do not study greek, but am wondering if someone has dissected these passages and could see that indeed there is a difference in the two types of tongues.
It has been a long time now, but it was very common for people to bring messages in tongues in Pentecostal churches, both Apostolic (Jesus only) and Trinitarian like the Assemblies churches. Usually following worship songs some would continue to worship in the Spirit with groanings and personal tongues in anticipation of another song or perhaps a message from someone in the congregation.
Sometimes this would be a prophecy, sometimes a tongue. But the interpretation was quite open at this point and many times the person bringing the tongue would follow with an interpretive word immediately. Some congregations might have two or three members who regularly felt moved to offer an interpretation, and if the pause went long enough the pastor would offer something interpretive to maintain spiritual order.
So much of this was subjective, and personalities weighed heavily. A person might bring a tongue with 3 or 4 repetitive words, and the interpretation a lengthy doctrinal discourse. I remember hearing these things and my callous Presbyterian brain would tend to thoughts like "There he goes again..."
In more recent years I have been in Pentecostal churches where this no longer exists. The potential for abuse and infighting was enormous and I am sure most pastors wearied of the personality aftermath.
But that's just some things I remember and have observed, perhaps others have seen it work differently?
I must concede that when the early Pentecostals first began re-ordering the way they held public worship, there was great interest in rediscovering New Testament methods and an expectation of New Testament results!
This discussion is locked.
